* It U worth while to remark that at least two of these ex- amples give the Eastern readings, namely, Ru £i> nK before
S: reiul but not written, and Jer S2'i OKI before niicn written but not read.
two elders in translating the Pentateuch into Greek. Kin, as is well known, is written in the Pentateuch for both masculine and feminine gender ; km occurs in MT of the Pentateuch only eleven times).
V. The Importance of the Ot^d Versions.— As really old MSS of the Ileb. OT are not avail- able (ii. C-E), the ancient Versions have been ex- amined in order to discover the character of the text at a period earlier than that for which the M.SS and the Mas(s)ora give their evidence. On these Versions see the separate articles in the present work. Here it may be generally re- marked that an exhaustive use of these aids is impossible so long as we are without critical editions. Such editions we do not as yet possess, whether of the LXX, the Taigums, the Peshitta, or the work of Jerome.
Of all the Versions the most important for our purpose is the Alexandrian, i.e. the LXX (see the Literature in Strack's Eiidcit. in das A T, S 87, and art. Septuagint above). Although, as has been just remarked, a critical edition is not yet in existence (for Dr. Swete gives only the text of cod. B with the variants of the oldest uncials), this much can be affirmed with certainty that the Heb. text which was the basis of the Alex, trans- lation frequently dillered from the MT. But from the circumstance of this difference it by no means follows that the Heb. text used for the LXX was a better one than the MT. (This assumption is a capital error in the painstaking work of A. W. Streane on Jeremiah). Owing to the variety of translators, a s|)ecial examination is required for every part of the OT. The LXX is of most use for the recovery of the Heb. text in the books of Samuel, Ezckiel, and partially Kings. For instance, in 1 S 8'", where MT has Danin^, LXX has rightly rd jdovKdXia ufj.u>v, i.e. DD'"p3. But in many passa<;es the text was corrupt even prior to the LXX : for example, 1 S 6'» ' 50070 ' and 2S 15' '40.'
The Hebrew exemplars from which the Alex- andrian translators worked had, at least in most of the books, the scriptiu continua, that is, there was no separation of the words : for example, 1 Ch 17'° ■? iJNi appears in LXX as xal aiir)au <re = nh^Sil: Pr 2' on •3'7n, LXX tV TTopilav aOrCir ; 18' nj KJ, LXX ili^dSos avTui' (cf. Driver, Aute.s on Heb. text of Sam. p. xxx f. ; Ginsburg, Introd. 158-162). — The viatres lectionis were less Irequently employed than is now the case in the MT (cf. Driver, I.e. pp. xxxii-xxxiv; Ginsburg, I.e. pp. 137-167. — It is uncertain whether any, or how many, MSS with the old Heb. (Canaanite) script were used h^ the Alex, translators, and hence whether deviations from the present MT may be explained by interchange of letters which resemble each other in the old form of writing (cf. Ginsburg, Introd. pj). 291-296 ; A. J. Bauingartner, L'Hat du texte du livre des Proverbes, Leipzig, 1890, pp. 272-282).
Of the revising activity of the ^opherim many traces are to be discovered from the LXX, a circumstance which shows that this activity had commenced long before. Ish-baal the son ot Saul is called in the LXX '\(jj3i<T0f, as in MT nfac-K (see vol. ii. 501 f.). The most of the emendations of the Sopherim (d"idi3 [ipn) are found also in the LXX, e.g. Jer 2" nnD rV oo^ar airroD for nns ; but in two passages at leiust the ancient text is pre- served : 1 S 3" on'? D'VVp:, LXX KaKoXoyoOfTes Oebv, i.e. D-nSK 'a, and Job 7" 'hv, LXX ivl <rol, i.e.
vi. OUSERVATIONS ON THE HlSTOItY OF TUB
Text of the OT. — What means have we ol getting back to still earlier times?
A. Comparison of parallel passages. Historical
r32 TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAJtfENT
Gn 5, etc. and 1 Ch 1 ; 2 S 23»f- and 1 Ch 11 ; Sam., Kings passim, and Chron. ; 2 K 18"-20'» and Is 36-39 ; 2 K 24"'-25*' and Jer 52. Lci/is- lative: Ex 20 and Dt 5 (the Decalogue) ; Lv U-*- = Dt 14«-. Poetical: 2S 22 = Ps IS; Ps 105. 96. 106 and 1 Ch IG"'- ; Ps 14 and 53 ; Ps 40"*- and W-i Ps 57'" and lOS'"-; Ps 60="- and 108™-. Pro- phetical : Is 2--' and Mic 4'' ; Ob '•« and Jer 49"'-. Some of the dilVerences which show themselves between parallel passages may be explained by the assumption that they are due to an intention on the part of a later author or redactor (even if this intention was based on nothing more than the principle of variatio delectat). To intention, for instance, must be ascribed the deviations of the Deuteronomic Decalogue from Ex 20. In- tention, too, explains the diversity of construction of the word o'n% ' God,' which is ))lur. in Ex 32*- ' (iD^.i) but sing, in Neh 9'* (ll*).';!), and so 2 S 7^ o^.i, but 1 Ch 17-' ^Vn. It is very remarkable that the revising activity of the Sopherim is less manifest in Chronicles than in the books that were earlier accepted as canonical. One of David's sons is called in 2 S 5'" yi;^N, LXX 'E\ta5^, but in 1 Ch 14' jn;^;;3 the original form of the name has been pre- sen'ed (cf. n=3-»'x of 2 S 2* al. with 'jy??'? of 1 Ch S'^ aZ.).— In many instances, however, we must assume an error in the tradition: Gn 10*- *iJiphath and Z>odanim, 1 Ch 1 /)iphath and iJodanim ; 1 K 5« [Eng. 42«] ' 40,000,' but 2 Ch 9" ' 4000' ; 1 K 7* '2000,' but 2 Ch 4» '3000'; 1 K 7" 'knops' (pekaim), but 2 Ch 4' ' oxen ' {be/cSrim). Both texts cannot be correct ; the one or the other rests upon a mistake. Possible sources of error are : freaks of the eye or (in cases of dictation) the ear, ■wandering of the memory {e.g. the putting down of a synonymous word, cf. 2 S 22' xipx and Ps 18 S1BK), false interpretation of abbreviations, or, conversely, failure to recognize the abbreviated form of words. All these sources of change and of error were of course at work also in those passages where, on account of the non-existence of a parallel passage, we cannot so readily recognize them.